I have no objections with moving it to Standards Track. Regards, Brian
On 7/11/11 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Does anyone object to switching this draft from BCP to Standards Track? > (See Pete Resnick's comments below.) > > It is on this Thursday's IESG agenda. > > Brian Carpenter > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-04: (with > DISCUSS) > ... >> On 2011-07-12 03:09, Pete Resnick wrote: >>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-04: Discuss > > ... >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Section 3 of this document (the main section) seems like protocol to me. >>> (For example, "Inner packets MUST be encapsulated in an outer IPv6 packet >>> whose source and destination addresses are those of the tunnel end points >>> (TEPs)".) Therefore, I see no reason for this not to be on the Standards >>> Track. It seems like it has interoperability impacts and gives normative >>> implementation guidance. >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
